• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

Status
Not open for further replies.
bonesmccoy2014 said:
It led me to consider why the timing of the video release was made for this particular week.
Click to expand...
Because I was busy prior to this time. There is no conspiracy going on here, except in your mind.

bonesmccoy2014 said:
It is the California resident who's privacy rights must be protected per their own request.
Click to expand...
So? Alec Peters (not Alex as you keep calling him btw..) is the only Californian resident here and his privacy rights are protected. The interview is governed by Queensland privacy laws because that's where it originated.

bonesmccoy2014 said:
The posting is more to inform and offer the perspective of a person from a different crowd than those which appear to regularly frequent this forum.
Click to expand...
Well, after six pages, you have been resoundingly proven wrong.
 
Ok, we gotta do something about this; his name and title is never gonna fit on a business card:

Lord Foot-in-Mouth, Grand Infringor, Misuser of Funds, Archduke of Defamation, High Axacutioner of Axanar.

And the Titles just keep on comin'!
 
bonesmccoy2014 said:
Thanks again for your response.
In case you didn't see the question, the question I had posed to you directly was attempting to understand where the story that there were widespread calls from CBS going to multiple projects? The question is to explore the timing of your video released with Pedraza and MB. I am concerned because the timing of the video release coincided with the conclusion of funding campaigns for other worthy projects. It led me to consider why the timing of the video release was made for this particular week.

Regarding the interpretation of California laws on privacy, again the location of the other parties is irrelevant so long as one person on the call is from California. It is the California resident who's privacy rights must be protected per their own request. And, as I stated prior, my postings are not intended as a criticism of your work. The posting is more to inform and offer the perspective of a person from a different crowd than those which appear to regularly frequent this forum.

Looking forward to reading your response to the question I have posed.
Click to expand...

Let's stop beating around the bush. You're making an accusation. You think that the articles about Horizon shutting down, The Trekzone interview and other actions were coordinated to prevent the Star Trek Continues indigogo fundraising drive from being successful.

There it's out in the open and we're not pussyfooting around it any more.

Why do you think Michael, Carlos and Matt would do such a thing? Why do you think they have enough influence to hurt Continues? Do you think that most fans have heard of either of their pages to the point where they could make or break Continues?

Seriously if you have something to say, just say it. You clearly want to stir up trouble and hiding behind phrases like
"....question is to explore the timing...." When you really want to say "Hey you guys did this on purpose!"
 
bonesmccoy2014 said:
In case you didn't see the question, the question I had posed to you directly was attempting to understand where the story that there were widespread calls from CBS going to multiple projects?
Click to expand...
From what I've read, that claim came from AP and it was picked up by reporters / bloggers until TK corrected the record by saying it wasn't true, that he was never told that by CBS nor did he tell AP any of that. (Someone tell me if I read that wrong.) I thought I posted that in reply to you just the other day.
 
Last edited:
Campe98 said:
@bonesmccoy2014 -- I'm not trying to silence you, but I do question why you are suggesting that @TREKZONE.org is guilty of wiretapping.
Click to expand...

You are putting words in my mouth. I never made such an accusation. Your mind is making extrapolations which were neither expressed nor written.


Campe98 said:
@bonesmccoy2014
It was stated in the video that Peters let Bawden know he was on with Matt. Bawden knew an interview was occurring. The idea of malice here is completely unfounded.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying but you appear to have not picked up on my meaning in the prior messages.
There is a legit issue now where this particular interview with AP could be used by AP counsel to argue a defense based upon violation of AP's privacy. Had the video been shut off per the "We're off the record", then the question would not exist. Now, there is a legal question regarding whether or not the "Off the record" statement by AP constitutes withdrawal of authorization to film. This legal question may materially impact the CBS v Axanar case because AP is a defendant and the California Penal Code Section 631(c) wordings forbids the use of the recorded materials in any other proceedings.


Campe98 said:
@bonesmccoy2014
But even moreso, I question why @carlosp and @Michael Hinman are not allowed to report on this issue.
Click to expand...

Again, I did not say that these people "are not allowed to report on this issue". I was intentionally not saying that. My point is that their reporting was timed oddly. My question was posted to the VLogger because I was attempting to understand the timing of this video piece.

I await a clarification on this timing issue.

More importantly, the Axanar case is NOT Star Trek news because Axanar is NOT Star Trek itself. CBS' litigation clarifies that Axanar is not a Paramount or CBS activity. Therefore, this is not a Star Trek story at all.
 
Sgt_G said:
From what I've read, that claim came from AP and it was picked up by reporters / bloggers until TK corrected the record by saying it wasn't true, that he was never told that by CBS nor did he tell AP any of that. I thought I posted that in reply to you just the other day.
Click to expand...
TK did say on Trek Geeks that Bill Burke told him calls were being made to "other productions," but I never heard him say how many or that it was "widespread."
 
bonesmccoy2014 said:
Thanks again for your response.

Regarding the interpretation of California laws on privacy, again the location of the other parties is irrelevant so long as one person on the call is from California. It is the California resident who's privacy rights must be protected per their own request.
Click to expand...

Which is why Jordan Belfort is currently hiding his sorry ass in Brisbane, happily not paying his US Court ordered costs to his victims and the US Tax office.

My specialty is in International Human Rights law. You have no idea how much this simplistic view on international jurisdiction and state sovereignty amuses me. I mean, it's not like it's one of the most complicated and controversial legal issues to ever exist. Nope, we have one piece of domestic black-letter law that doesn't even cover jurisdiction, and that's all there is to it.

Someone should alert the UN. The ICJ's job just got so much easier.
 
Last edited:
bonesmccoy2014 said:
More importantly, the Axanar case is NOT Star Trek news because Axanar is NOT Star Trek itself. CBS' litigation clarifies that Axanar is not a Paramount or CBS activity. Therefore, this is not a Star Trek story at all.
Click to expand...

It is a 'Star Trek' story, that's what the whole fucking lawsuit is about. The unauthorized use of CBS IP.
 
Sgt_G said:
From what I've read, that claim came from AP and it was picked up by reporters / bloggers until TK corrected the record by saying it wasn't true, that he was never told that by CBS nor did he tell AP any of that. I thought I posted that in reply to you just the other day.
Click to expand...

The question is not regarding AP's behavior.

The question I posed to TrekZone was regarding the timing of his interview with Pedraza and why the vlog was released on this particular week. There was really no new information in the one hour vlog piece. It relied upon weeks old interview footage of AP and the collateral speculation on other fan films damages those other projects.
 
BillJ said:
It is a 'Star Trek' story, that's what the whole fucking lawsuit is about. The unauthorized use of CBS IP.
Click to expand...

The lawsuit is neither news or unexpected. CBS had to defend its copyright and trademark. This is a run of the mill copyright complaint. Nothing to see here... move on.
 
bonesmccoy2014 said:
Had the video been shut off per the "We're off the record", then the question would not exist. Now, there is a legal question regarding whether or not the "Off the record" statement by AP constitutes withdrawal of authorization to film.
Click to expand...
Off The Record does not mean stop filming.

bonesmccoy2014 said:
Again, I did not say that these people "are not allowed to report on this issue".
Click to expand...
In a VERY roundabout way you are.

bonesmccoy2014 said:
The question I posed to TrekZone was regarding the timing of his interview with Pedraza and why the vlog was released on this particular week.
Click to expand...
And again, I refer you to the following:
https://twitter.com/TREKZONEorg/status/720095634016059393
https://twitter.com/TREKZONEorg/status/724380154810667008
https://twitter.com/TREKZONEorg/status/724579193393131520
https://twitter.com/TREKZONEorg/status/724901928648495105
 
bonesmccoy2014 said:
There is a legit issue now where this particular interview with AP could be used by AP counsel to argue a defense based upon violation of AP's privacy. Had the video been shut off per the "We're off the record", then the question would not exist. Now, there is a legal question regarding whether or not the "Off the record" statement by AP constitutes withdrawal of authorization to film. This legal question may materially impact the CBS v Axanar case because AP is a defendant and the California Penal Code Section 631(c) wordings forbids the use of the recorded materials in any other proceedings.
Click to expand...
Only if CBS should try to use whatever he said after that point and only if it's something they cannot find from other source during discovery (it's called "inevitable discovery"), and even if all that should happen, it's just one small piece of evidence out of a ton of evidence they already have on file. The worst that could happen is the judge might throw out one page of a 5,000 page document. Big fat hairy deal.

More importantly, the Axanar case is NOT Star Trek news because Axanar is NOT Star Trek itself. CBS' litigation clarifies that Axanar is not a Paramount or CBS activity. Therefore, this is not a Star Trek story at all.
Click to expand...
:guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw:

Oh, that's rich!!!
 
bonesmccoy2014 said:
The question is to explore the timing of your video released with Pedraza and MB. I am concerned because the timing of the video release coincided with the conclusion of funding campaigns for other worthy projects. It led me to consider why the timing of the video release was made for this particular week.
Click to expand...

You're seeing conspiracies where there are none.

Regarding the interpretation of California laws on privacy, again the location of the other parties is irrelevant so long as one person on the call is from California. It is the California resident who's privacy rights must be protected per their own request.
Click to expand...

You also are putting far too much emphasis on California law and not enough on the complexities of jurisdiction, particularly when they work across interstate and international borders.

bonesmccoy2014 said:
You are putting words in my mouth. I never made such an accusation. Your mind is making extrapolations which were neither expressed nor written.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you buddy, but wiretapping's exactly what California Penal Code Section 631 is talking about.

And, yes, paragraph (c) does have to do with those wiretaps not being used in court proceedings. But even still, this is an interview. Not evidence for a trial. As has been said elsewhere, this will not be used in a court proceeding. No judge would ever allow it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top